Search

As I’m sure you all know, health care reform passed recently. The health care reform battle has triggered a lot of debates concerning abortion, and people everywhere have been sharing their opinions. To my dismay, some of these people, who call themselves pro-choice, have actually been supporting Stupak and his attempts to dump abortion coverage from health care reform. The question that I have for them is this; why?

Pro-Choice: The belief that all people should have the right to decide what is going to happen to his or her body, particularly as it pertains to pregnancy. I would hope that all pro-choicers would agree on this definition. The thing is, without access to abortion, the legality of the procedure is meaningless. Operation Rescue knows this, that’s why they’re trying to exterminate abortion providers. Stupak knows this, that’s why he tried to eliminate all federal funds for abortions during the health care reform battle. Anti-choicers know this piece of information, and they’re using it as a weapon to eliminate women’s rights. However, are pro-choicers aware of this fact?

I would say that, for the most part, pro-choicers are aware of the fact that, without access, the right to abortion means nothing. However, it seems as if a good number of self proclaimed pro-choicers either don’t realize this or don’t care. These “pro-choicers” say that they support the legality of abortion, but only if the woman has a good enough reason, or only if this is her first abortion, or only if she’s not using it as “birth control”. The types of “pro-choicers” that I’ll be writing about today are the ones who support the legality of abortion, but do not support the funding of abortion.
I’ll say it again. Without access, the right to abortion is meaningless. There are a lot of women that, if they had to, could get by and have an abortion without financial assistance from outside sources. For me and for many of you that are reading this, $400 dollars isn’t that much to pay. We would be able to pay for an abortion out of our own pockets.

If you are one of those people, then you are privileged.

Many other women aren’t as privileged as you are. Many women have to keep on rescheduling their appointments, over and over again, because they can never gather up enough money. This poses as a major problem because, as you know, abortions become more expensive (not to mention more risky!) as the pregnancy goes on. Some women have to skip meals, or skip out on paying their rent for the month. Some women can’t afford a hotel and are forced to sleep in their cars because of the anti-choice mandatory waiting periods. Others can’t afford a safe abortion at all, and have to resort to going to unsafe clinics like Dr. Gosnell’s clinic. Some take the matters into their own hands, and throw themselves down a flight of stairs, or ask their boyfriend’s to beat them up in order to induce a miscarriage. To those who are “pro-choice” but do not support the funding of abortions, I ask you; what of those women? What of their choice?

I was talking to one of these “pro-choicers” on Twitter, and I asked her about those women. I asked her what a woman should do if she can not afford an abortion. Her answer? “if you can’t afford an abortion, then you are going to have a baby. Period.”

How the hell is that pro-choice?

That woman is “pro-choice”, but only for the people are are privileged enough to be able to afford an abortion. Otherwise, she isn’t much different from anti-choicers. She supports forcing women through pregnancies. What’s pro-choice about that?

To all of the pro-choicers out there, you can donate to an abortion fund here. Please fight for the right to choose, even for women who are not as privileged as you are.

5 Responses to “The Pro-Choicers Who Force Birth.”

This is such a ridiculous argument from the Anti-choicers – if a woman can’t afford an abortion, what makes you think she can afford a child? Even if she’s going to give that baby up for adoption, what makes you think she can afford proper housing/medical care/food/etc. etc. during her pregnancy?

That’s, of course, besides the point – which is that abortion should be available — period.

First off, I’m pro-choice, fiercely so. Whether the mother was raped, or simply forgot to use birth control that day, all instances.

I recently had this exact debate with a pro-choice co-worker, who stated that she supported the legality of choice, but not the funding of it using her tax dollars. She asked, why should she fund what she sees as an elective operation, on par with a boob job?

I just didn’t have to words to answer her, to tell you the truth. I believe that abortion should be available/affordable to all women, and that low-income women, and teenage girls without jobs need this procedure to be available via hcr. I just can’t think of a legal explanation to answer my friend with.

When someone pulls the “but it’s an elective procedure!” argument, I tell them that going through a pregnancy is just as elective as ending one. So far, none of them have been for ending funding for prenatal care because pregnancy is elective. This proves that it has nothing to do with abortion being elective. It has to do with them not liking the procedure, in which case, they’re picking and choosing.